Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

CCP Section 1021.5: Airport Operations Officer Does Not Obtain Private Attorney General Statutory Fees Because Focus of Action Was On Advancement of His Own Personal Interests

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division Six Also Determines No Fees Awardable Under Government Code section 800.      In County of Ventura v. Ventura County Prof. Peace Officers Assn., Case No. B204907 (Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished), real party in interest was reinstated as an airport operations officers pursuant to an arbitration award, which was then vacated by the […]

Fourth District, Division Three Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award In Two Real Estate Cases

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Seller Hit With Fees In a Water Accumulation Concealment Case; Neighbors Obtain Fees Against Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Case.      In these interesting financial times, we find that real estate disputes still fester and produce interesting posts on attorney’s fees issues. The next two cases do not disappoint, originating from our local Santa Ana

Wrongful Foreclosure And Home Improvement Case: Fees Are Sustained And Remanded For Calculation In Wild Decision Out Of The Second District

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Section 1717 Fees Are Affirmed As to Husband, Reversed and Remanded As to Wife; Home Improvement Statutory Fees Are Affirmed As to Both Husband and Wife.      Talk about a wild one. If any of you readers believe that legal cases do not mimic real life, you need to read and stay tuned for our

Ninth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Refusal To Award Attorney’s Fees To Defendants In Copyright Infringement and Lanham Act Case

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Federal Court of Appeals Summarizes Governing Standards In These Intellectual Property Areas.      The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has a nice discussion of the standards governing award of attorney’s fees to defendants in copyright infringement and Lanham Act cases. The discussion occurred in Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales and Marketing, Case Nos. 06-55806

California Public Records Act: Unpublished Decision Reviewed On Our October 1, 2008 Post Is Certified For Publication

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

California Public Records Act: Unpublished Decision Reviewed On Our October 1, 2008 Post Is Certified For Publication Sixth District Certifies Bernardi v. County of Monterey For Publication.      On October 1, 2008, we posted a review of Bernardi v. County of Monterey, Case No. H031648 (6th Dist. Sept. 30, 2008). We indicated that this case

Brown Act And California Public Records Act: Court Of Appeal Reverses Trial Court Denial Of Attorney’s Fees In Published Decision

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fifth District Determines Plaintiff Did Prevail Under Public Records Act in Establishing Denial of Access to All Local Agency Documents.      The case we next review is important to all practitioners (most likely public interest or land use attorneys) seeking to make sure there is transparency in the government decision making process or there is

CEQA Attorney’s Fees Award Reversed Because Petitioners Did Substantially Comply With Providing Notice Of Expedited Hearing Date

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

First District, Division Four Faces Novel Issue, Overturning Fee Award Against Petitioners.      Now we look at an interesting decision for CEQA practitioners.      Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), a petitioner must request a hearing within 90 days of filing the petition or be subject to

Brother Losing Wrongful Death/Survival Action Tagged With Over $250,000 In Attorney’s Fees On Various Grounds

Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Sustains Fee Award Based on Unruh Act and CCP section 998; CCP section 1026(b) Did Not Bar Imposition of Fees               Civil cases are very interesting affairs, with attorney’s fees awards based many times on variant statutory provisions.  Justice Moore, of our local Fourth District, Division 3, was the author

Defendant Given Relief From Default Judgment Properly Assessed With Payment Of $8,000 Of Attorney’s Fees And Costs As A Condition Of Relief

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court of Appeal Observes that $1,000 Monetary “Cap” in CCP section 473 Only Applies to 473 Awardable Sanctions.             Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) authorizes a trial court to relieve a party from judgment taken against him/her through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  The court has discretion to allow relief

Sixth District Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award of $244,287.50 Against Monterey County Under the California Public Records Act

Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Unpublished Decision Nicely Surveys Such Topics As Standard of Review, Lodestar, and Multiplier Principles.             In our June 30, 2008 post, we discussed a Shasta County Superior Court’s award of attorney’s fees against the City of Redding under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  Government Code section 6259(d) provides for a mandatory

Scroll to Top